The point I made that you are responding to is the actual, more or less enshrined in law presumption of guilt of any male person accused of violence against a female.
Law enforcement showing disregard or ignoring evidence of assault, sexual or otherwise, of any gender, is a violation of their duty and responsibilities. I don’t think you’ll see much disagreement on that. I contend that, mandating that if there’s any accusation whatsoever, that the male be arrested, which is essentially how some of these laws are written, is just as much a violation. In the latter case, however, there’s no meaningful recourse by the individual even possible, because the law mandated the behavior.
I guess what I’m saying here is, at a bare minimum, when a police officer engages in objectionable conduct, either by under or over-enforcement, let’s at least make sure it’s against the rules, even if the rules are routinely ignored. Then the issue can be attacked as “Follow the damn rules that are set out”. That’s a bad problem, and one that’s not easily solved. But if we’ve got rules that enshrine discriminatory behavior or abuse of authority, that’s a problem of an order of magnitude larger.
When the word of an accuser outweighs the visible physical evidence (ripped shirt, etc, vs. no particular marks), simply because of gender, I view that as a problem, and one thats going actively in the wrong direction. I don’t think tolerance for police ignoring evidence of assaults against women or people of alternate gender identity is on the rise, if anything scrutiny is on the rise, and rightly so. But that’s no excuse for witch trial like behavior.
Sir - I don’t think that you have ever been a woman who has been assaulted, who has tried to report this offense - even with witnesses present who corroborate your account - only to have been treated as though you were “asking for it” with some contortion of logic by law enforcement or other figures of authority.
Your fantasy of the "presumption of guilt of any male person accused of violence against a female"is only generally applicable in an extremely racist locale, where a black male is accused of assaulting a young white daughter of a local businessman, political figure, etc. Beyond that - the general attitude of most law enforcement I have encountered in these situations is “Bitches Be Crazy”. See: the vast #'s of unreported rapes, the vast #'s of women assaulted or killed by their male ex, who they had a restraining or order of protection against. You are dreaming if you think that most women who have attempted to report an assault are treated with respect, kindness, concern - or the attitude that their assault was as severe or traumatic as they say it was.
Seriously - you want to believe that the police are “good guys” who are held to a higher standard of behaviour, justice, morality - who are somehow above racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia themselves ? Hmmm, not in my experience.
Sex crimes aren’t usually about sexual gratification - they are about power, which she was certainly exerting over him (though you could argue that was because he was letting her to retain some sort of moral high ground for the courtroom).
Um, you pull quoted only part of my statement.
You left off, “(that’s usually a required component, so I doubt she’ll even be charged that way)”. I was speaking legally, not morally or psychologically. Unfortunately, a lot of America doesn’t realize that rapists don’t all do it for fun. I do realize that power rapists are all about domination, but not all rapists are: pedophiles have different motivations.
Now, on to law:
She wasn’t charged at the scene with a sexual attack, and that’s probably because men are allowed to go outside without shirts on in CT (women can’t roam about that way). She could have been charged with 3rd degree sexual assault if she’d messed with his meat and two veg rather than torn his shirt off.
